What does the EOS R tell us about Canon and the RF mount's future?

Despite not being tremendously exciting, I believe Canon's EOS R shows a more adventurous attitude, at least by Canon's standards, than we're used to seeing. Having shot with the camera, spoken to Canon and read the tea leaves, here's what I think the EOS R tells us about Canon and the RF's mount's future.

The RF mount

Interestingly, both Canon and Nikon have settled on a similar solution: a short, wide lens mount and have both said it gives them greater design freedom when it comes to making lenses. Canon gave a little more detail about the ways in which it does so.

Both Canon and Nikon have settled on a similar solution: a short and wide lens mount

The shorter flange-back distance allows Canon to mount a large rear lens element much closer to the sensor, and the wide diameter means they can create lenses that don't need to squeeze light through a narrow tunnel. Designing lenses that don't have to make such dramatic adjustments to the course of the light passing through the lens allows lenses with fewer optical aberrations. It also gives the option to use fewer elements, which can make some lenses lighter.

I said I thought it was an uncharacteristically bold move by Nikon to step away from the F-mount and I think you could say the same for Canon. If someone were trying to be really cynical, they might suggest Canon and Nikon are making such a noise about the use of wide and short designs just so they can imply a design limitation in Sony's narrower E mount. But having shot the 28-70mm F2 wide-open a little over the last few days, I'm more likely to believe there's some benefit to what Nikon and Canon say they're doing.

But perhaps that's where the comparisons with the Nikon should end.

The quiet radical

While Nikon tried to mimic its DSLR's behavior as closely as possible, but primarily using its live-view AF modes, Canon seems to have taken a more open-minded approach. The general perception we see from our readers (and it's one we have some sympathy for), is that Canon is a cautious company with a dominant market position that discourages the kinds of unexpected innovation we see from the likes of Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony.

The EOS R has a number of interesting features, including the habit of stopping down its lens on shutdown. This lets the company close the mechanical shutter to reduce dust ingress, since it minimizes the risk of sunlight condensed by the lens warping the shutter blades.

But that's not true of the EOS R. For years we'e been calling on manufacturers to try to work from a blank sheet of paper, rather than just doing what's always been done. And the more we've used the EOS R, the more it feels like Canon has at least tried to do that. Not to the extent of throwing everything away, but at least using this new system as an opportunity to think about which existing elements they want to maintain and where there's room for something new. So not quite a blank sheet, but at least stopping to consider existing assumptions.

It looks to me like a genuine attempt to create the best of both worlds

More so than the Nikon Z cameras, Canon has taken some elements of its live view AF system: Face + AF Tracking mode, for instance, but then blended this with the way AF points work on its DSLRs. It looks to me like a genuine attempt to create the best of both worlds, rather than being completely constrained by trying to deliver what they think their existing customers will expect.

The EOS R takes the Face + Tracking mode from its live view system but adds the custom option from its DSLRs that lets you choose whether to specify the starting subject or let the camera choose.

There is a lot of continuity, though. For instance in continuous autofocus mode, Face + AF Tracking works, by default, analogously to Canon's 61-point auto system: automatically picking a subject and following it. And, like on those DSLRs, there's a menu option to change this behavior so that you specify the starting point and subject for the camera to track. It's an interesting blend of the live view AF mode with DSLR behavior that I think says a lot about the approach Canon has taken.

The EOS R feels like a 'version 1' product

Of course the down-side of starting afresh (relatively), is that you introduce new problems and bugs that you'd ironed-out of your existing interface. There are certainly aspects that make the EOS R feels like a 'version 1' product: something we don't usually expect from Canon.

Innovative touches (for better or worse)

The EOS R also shows some innovative touches in its design, some more visible than others.

The M-Fn Bar along the back of the camera can be customized to act as two buttons and a 'swipeable' control pad. None of us have been very impressed, so far.

The funky 'M-Fn Bar' control strip along the back of the camera, for instance. To me it feels a touch gimmicky. I've yet to find anything I really want to assign to it, find it easy to inadvertently operate and have experienced the occasional glitch when I do intentionally use it (another very un-Canon-like experience).

The M-Fn Bar will need to evolve into something useful or will die-out.

It's a fun idea and a very prominent display of original thinking, but it feels to me like the 'Touchbar' that Apple has added to its recent laptops: a device looking for a purpose and one that I think will need to evolve into something useful or will die-out in a couple of generations. Worse still, it occupies a prime location on the back of the camera and, while you can configure it to essentially just act as two buttons, there's only a limited choice over what those two buttons do.

We were all quite impressed with the clicking control dial on all the RF lenses. We were even more impressed that Canon has made an adapter ring that means you retain the capability when working with EF lenses.

An idea I suspect will persist is the additional, clicking control ring on the RF lenses (whose function, cleverly, is duplicated on one of the EF-to-RF adapters Canon offers). It's a cute move - one first tried by Samsung - that lets you quickly access another camera parameter without the body being overrun by dials. We're also told Canon service centers will (for a fee), 'de-click' the dials on your lenses if you need smooth or silent operation for video work.

The illusion of customization

But there are also signs of Canon still being, well, Canon. A criticism we've leveled at Canon over the years is that, even when it does offer customization, it's often very restrictive in how much change it lets you make. Sadly, while the EOS R initially appears to take some steps in the right direction: a large number of buttons are customizable and have an extensive set of custom options available (between 25 and 45, depending on the button), the reality is different. In many instances they're not necessarily the custom options you might want, and you'll still have to learn which features can be placed on which buttons before you can find your preferred setup. Or, at least, the closest to it that Canon allows.

You still can't always do everything you might want: despite lots of options about which dial controls what setting. There's relatively little choice over which dial controls Exposure Compensation, for instance. And there's no easy way to gain access to the Auto ISO threshold setting, without digging into the main menu. There's also little access to drive mode or metering mode, meaning the EOS R is a camera that demands you use the Q.Menu, rather than letting you put everything at your fingertips.

In perhaps the most un-Canon-like move imaginable, it's said it will improve these cameras via firmware updates.

However, in perhaps the most un-Canon-like move imaginable, the company has also said it will implement a new policy of improving these cameras via firmware updates. Fingers crossed.

RF > EOS R

What perhaps makes all of the positives harder to see is that the first camera, the EOS R, isn't very exciting. The pre-launch rumors and use of the 5D IV's sensor led a lot of people to expect an EOS 5D IV level camera, which it most certainly isn't. But even as something more comparable to a 6D Mark II it's still a little underwhelming.

The pictures it takes are great, which shouldn't come as a surprise for a camera with the 5D IV's sensor. The dynamic range isn't class-leading but it's much closer to being competitive than Canon had previously been. It also feels superb when you first pick it up: solid, comfortable and with well-positioned controls, at least for the most part.

After admiring the hand-feel of the camera, the second thing you'll notice is the apparent lack of means of controlling the AF point. The touchpad mode, disabled by default, is the only sensible way to operate the EOS R.

The rest of package is a little less impressive. Heavily cropped 4K video with visible rolling shutter isn't the level of performance most other brands are offering (though the inclusion of Canon-Log and 10-bit output suggest the company wants to do video properly in these cameras). Separate exposure settings for video (which was part of what sounds like an anxiously-made decision to dispense with the conventional mode dial), and separate button custom settings for video are big steps forward.

The EOS R's burst rate (with AF at least) is also poor by contemporary standards, again suggesting a sensor or processor bottleneck.

The bigger picture

But while we're not especially blown-away by the EOS R, I think we're all quite impressed by the system it hints at. It should be pretty obvious that Canon didn't develop a $3000 28-70mm F2 zoom or $2300 50mm F1.2 to be mounted on a $2300 mid-range full frame body. Nor does it seem likely that its engineers works away to produce a 24-105mm F4 with silent autofocus, 1/8th EV aperture control and extremely well controlled focus breathing for a camera whose 4K capture gives it a 40mm equivalent wide-angle field of view.

Canon didn't develop a $3000 28-70mm F2 zoom to be mounted on a mid-range body.

Beyond the system, I also think that the EOS R shows Canon being more flexible and innovative than we're used to seeing, whether it's in the apparent approach to the UI development, the creation of the M-Fn Bar or its stated willingness to improve the camera via firmware updates. Just as I said of Nikon, I hope Canon will retain this more adaptable approach as the system continues to develop.

If you're a Canon DSLR shooter, it's probably not yet time to begin the migration across to the RF system, but the work the company has already done and its apparent approach make us believe it'll look increasingly compelling in the coming years. If that's enough to stop you thinking about jumping-ship (with your existing lenses) to Sony, then I suspect Canon's done what they were trying to achieve. It'll be interesting to see what the RF series leads to.

Instead of offering something that competes with a $1000 iphone they made a camera for the .0001% with $3400 to spend on a camera with kit lens. Since (compared to iphones) almost no one will buy this camera it does not matter and iphones win.

When folks ask me (the camera guy in the family) about a new camera I just tell them to upgrade their 4 year old phone and fugetabout wasting $$ on the also ran overprice cameras canonnikonsony are shoveling out for rich lawyers these days.

Canon offers an array of cameras over a wide price range. If you are interested in purchasing a less expensive Canon camera, I would suggest you investigate something in the EOS-M category, or one of their entry level Rebel DSLRs. If you are happy taking pictures with an iPhone, that's great too.

@keeponkeepingon: Have you ever seen a professional photographer taking picture of race cars, soccer games, wild animals in arctics, birds in fly, portraits using flashes and light modifiers, macro picture of insects, and 8 sec shots of fireworks using his/her cell phone?!Have you ever seen a professional videographer shoot something like La La Land merely using a cell phone?! There should be a reason for that!

Yep, "real people" the ones not buying $3400 non-pro cameras take pictures of all of the above with smartphones.

As CarpentersEye states "the cameraphones win". Canonnikon have lost touch with reality, instead of more useable, more integrated, smarter easier to use systems we get more expensive of more of the same.

As long as you understand that’s just less bad. Still not comprehensive. Still a waste on fast depreciating tech. Even a less bad (total balance) system drops like a rock; because it's not then first adopter.

But price changes things. Namely the value balance of any of these half done systems. If you GAVE me one of these new systems THEN I'd live with the stupidities inherent. Which may explain some reviewers, LOL. :o)

As a Fuji shooter who migrated from Canon FF and L glass I thought this article was brilliant and I agree with the observation that CaNikon have taken a bold step that for ages I have said they must take. They had to abandon their DSLR mounts. To try to keep them the same for their mirrorless move would have been disastrous. The wider shorter mount does open so much future design possibility, and I wonder if Fuji wishes they had desinged a wider mount years ago when they innovated with their XF mount and thus heralded in a line of world class glass but years later was not optimal for the essential IBIS that will be in all mirrorlesd bodies sooner than later.

I just wonder what the reason is behind Canon handicapping the 4k in almost all their cameras (or plainly not giving it).Is it just plain unwillingness? Or is there a technical problem behind this.Is their technology (the pipeline between sensor and imaging processing) not strong enough to do this.It is not exactly a secret that Canon has been struggling for years to get their sensor up to the level of the competition and hardly succeeding. Boldly said, the Canon sensor are okay but not exactly cutting edge.

So I wonder if it is a choice to handicap their cameras or just a giving fact because their tech lags behind.

If they don't have the technology other brands had years ago, despite being the "market leader" in sales, Canon have intentionally decided not to invest in the technology.

If the 5DIV sensor was not good enough for modern video features, why use it? We are now at the point where Canons 2018 cameras are no better than their 2016 cameras which were already no better than the competition.

I read somewhere that it is probably a combination of getting double the (dual pixel) data off the sensor and by less efficient means (which also indicates why 30Mpix is about the max they can currently handle).It might mean do you want compromised performance (FPS, video crop etc) but the benefits of dual pixel.That been said I am convinced Canon could easily offer higher quality 1080 with DPAF.

DPAF isn't the golden feature it's made out to be. If it was worlds ahead it may be worth some sacrifices but it isn't. It works best for video (on a camera you'd not want to use for video) and in stills it's not noticeably better than the AF implementation in the A9 or A7III.

I imagine that DPAF is pretty awesome for some people but as a landscape photographer it is more 'fun' than necessary. I mostly use magnified LV to focus, and then compose thru the VF - that is usually slow enough to render dual pixel irrelevant. [I hate trying to compose off a display, especially at wide angle. Got to have that VF 'negative space' to visualize the finished product (print)].This does mean however, that if DPAF is indeed putting constraints on Canon's speed, video and for myself, resolution, then I am definitely keeping an open mind about what my next 'system' will be.

Also small f/1.8 (light and balanced DOF over APS-C) primes is another reason why APS-C is the best balance, size, quality and cost included.

Nikon needs an "MX"(mirrorless) DX replacement M killer. 50 and 85 SMALLER APS-C primes. However I don't think they are going to pull out all the stops. Nikon may fail in this case. We need world competition.

@T3, my Canon zooms have IS, the primes don't. I'm not young (born before WW2) and don't carry a tripod around. It's no-BIG-deal to turn my body into a stabilized camera platform by placing my shoulder against a wall, tree or railing.

@cdembrey - Great, let's go look for a wall, tree or rail to place your shoulder against! And even then, it's not as good as having 5-axis IBIS that gives you an extra 4 or 5 stops of stability-- which works anywhere, even in an open field far away from any wall, tree or rail.

You obviously understand that stability is a valuable thing to have, otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to looking for a wall, tree or rail to use in an attempt to get a little more stability for your camera! I'd prefer not to have to alter or compromise my composition because the wall, tree, or rail may not be where I want it to be. I prefer to have stabilizing capability wherever I am standing.

It took Canikon fans 2 weeks to draw good ol' arguments like:- EGRONOMICS- IT'S A SOLID PRODUCT- GET OUT AND SHOOT, I WON'T USE YOUR TOY FUNCTIONS LIKE IBIS- REAL PROS DON'T USE SONY (A9 was frequent at RB Air Race Kazan lol)- CANON IS MARKET LEADER ANYWAY (though Sony just took Q1 USA FF sales according to NPD and not some tea leaf Japan CIPA numbers)

Guys, you're part of the problem. In the world of iPhone (A7/A9) and Galaxy (Fuji) new Nokia (R) and Blackberry (Z7) just don't cut it. You can spin it whatever you want, but both ex-leaders are way behind the curve with their new systems. Glass? As good as it might be, it's heavy, expensive and beyound convenient.

And yes, as a pro I need all the features I can get. High ISO DR, FPS, double IS, great video - all those things will convert to more money during the shooting day. Frequently, I'm the only photographer that allowed at a lot of events because of silent shutter and strict no-flash/LED policy. God bless A7s.

As a pro with 40 years of foto and film on my back - neither the Canon nor the Nikon are cutting it. Beginner toys with tech marred by marketing. The worst is offcenter autofocus. Why on earth do you want to focus a part of the lens that is just not sharp? Wt :-) documenting coma faults? Point it in the right direction...and good.

Here is what I want. Large MF lensmount and large sensor not FF plus. I am turned off by vignetting.Low ISO, vid and pics at 400 or more is just gross and vid needs to be much lighter. Atmospherics is a post production feature. In cam its a defect and hurts my pic taking.Solid 8k vid to crop. Zebra, Graphs. 4.2.2 or better.HDR plus on 10bit or better.12 stops. I would prefer 20.In body stabilization is a nice feature, gimbals are better.Large screen that is as good as my phone.M and A. I mostly use M to get the best out of it. I learned not to trust what cam makers are doing and its defective. P is mostly worthless.

I get what you're saying about tech; but disagree with size balance over APS-C and given the state of the art. Carry size (I don't mean postage stamp; the cam phone lives here), weight, different photographic situations, COC, diffraction and DOF balances all point to APS-C even with sensor progression improvements year by year.

Apparently you just want HD studio portraits or landscapes (and LARGE prints). And that's fine.

Oh and to the dismissive that vainly cry "4x5 then!". Not hardly practical. MF is not practical (though I wish). Even FF is pushing it and highly troublesome.

@CarpentersEye: I hear you. The Sony Rootkit...I boycott Sony since then and I loved their small tech marvels and the Tinitrons.

I do fishpics, 4k and JPG and I do it with a Gopro. Underwater Panoramas. There is better than this. I also do starry landscapes and did it with a D600 which just plain sucked and made me use the old D7000 again...and thats what I am using up.

Big sensors and wideangle to fisheye primes at 8k for underwater would give me the imax spatial look I want. For landscape and underwater. 10 bit, Raw, HDR plus, 8k.

JACS - Two out of four of the recently announced RF lenses (28-70mm F2 and 50mm F1.2) do *not* have stabilisation, and there is no IBIS. Both are huge heavy lenses so it will likely prove quite difficult to avoid camera shake when hand-holding - unless you shoot with the lenses at or near maximum aperture.

I think the point that LessMirrored was trying to make, and that I was trying to draw attention to, is that the R lacks IBIS, therefore with lenses such as the 28-70mm F2 and 50mm F1.2 there is no form of stabilisation available other than using a tripod.

@entoman - first let’s get one thing clear. The ONLY reason for LM19’s post is because he is a troll that bashes all brands but Sony. He resides under a Sony built bridge and only slithers out to preach from his Sony soap box.

Second, camera shake is a result of shutter speed, not aperture. I’m guessing you know that and were “hopefully” just connecting the two; although I’m not 100% sure. I have shot on many cameras with no form of stabilization, without risk of blurry pictures. All it requires is remedial knowledge of photography 101. So, while some form of IS is nice, I disagree that it is absolutely necessary.

And the two lenses you mentioned couldn’t be easier to hand hold, even stopped down. They are short focal lengths.

PhotoPhoolish - I have no idea why you would think I'm not aware of the obvious fact that camera shake is caused by using a shutter speed that is too low. I was an industrial photographer for 25 years, and a professional wildlife photographer for 10 years, so I think I can just about understand the basics....

The simple fact is that some people have steadier hands than others, but most people find it difficult to get a sharp hand-held image when using a shutter speed lower than the reciprocal of the focal length. Hence the introduction firstly of optical stabilisation, followed later by IBIS.

Also consider that the 50mm F1.2 and 28-70mm F2 are not going to be used at maximum aperture all the time. When used at smaller apertures that may require shutter speeds longer than the reciprocal of the focal length, camera shake is very likely to manifest itself, especially with high resolution sensors that make camera shake (or focus errors) more obvious.

@entoman - don’t be offended. Just realize that I don’t know your background or level of knowledge. I also see many many commentators that claim to be knowledgeable, yet know nothing.

Don’t get me wrong, IS in any form is useful, but the absolute needs are few if you think about different photographic scenarios. How often and under what scenario would a photographer using the 50 have to shoot slower than 1/50? I’m asking because most situations this lens would be used to it’s fullest extent would not be done that slow other than artistic reasons.

The goal of the R is stop the bleeding, hence the need to make it look and feel like a DSLR. It put its money on things that will make a Canon user feel familiar and at home. But lacking the tech means it is crippled in so many areas. Ver 1 is going to be problematic, but it only need to be good enough for the fans. For those who already got the a7-3 or a7r-3, most will not switch back. The high cost is also a barrier of entertaining a 2 system ownership. So, only those still within Canon will consider this. It is also doubtful if many Nikonians will shift.

Canon will succeed in stopping if not slowing down the migration with this one. But the high cost is a serious barrier. The lack of lenses, and many other things heaped upon Sony and others will soon haunt them as many will soon learn. Hopefully, many will realize that making so-so M MILCs is far different from making a MILC that can perform like a true DSLR, or match up to something as good as the A7-3 or now, the XT-3.

@Paul Jones - to some even if slaps them in the face, they will never know. The fact that suddenly, after years of silence, both Nikon and Canon just decided to build a truly competitive MILC? After 9 months of theh A7-3 release? And Panasonic is likely to join the fray too?

All Canon and Nikon have to do is nothing if there is no bleeding. Why rush and build a new lens lineup which they have to populate in the coming years? Why the rush? Is there any other reason except, the bleeding is real?

As far as SOFP goes, Canon have have the U$450-650 segment. They'll just keep a token of 1 or 2 models there as place holders. Sony even has the 5 year old a5100 and a6000 fronting that segment vs the newer m100 and m6. Ever wonder why?

It is obvious that Canon is winning the numbers war in the low segment, while Sony is selling few A7-3's and A7-2's but reaping more profits.

@ozturet - we in the MILC world knew that years ago. It has been dismissed by some DSLR die-hards though.

But it isn't just the lowering of cost. If it were so, why didn't Canikon fully embrace MILC 5 years ago? Why not start the transition even if takes 10-15 years? They only acted now because they got sideswiped by the A7-3. Suddenly, this camera is way better than the 5d4 & way cheaper by U$1,300 then.

There's also more to making a truly competitive MILC. What happened to the N1 and the relegated low end M series shows that if you don't do the R&D properly you get mediocre MILCs. Translate that to an A7-3 beater, and you can't match up. Now, the xt-3 have set another high bar for Canikon in the aps-c segment. If the XT-3 is 35FF MILC, it would even outperform Canikon's offerings.

Now the A7-3, A7R-3, A9 and XT-3 is showing that dslr's now can never be on par with high performing MILCs. This is the start of the death of DSLRs. It will be a long slow one.

Caterpillar, I have A9 and A7RIII. They are great, but still a high end DSLR is better to use. My A9 and Zeiss 55mm f1.8 has difficulty to focus in very low light at apertures lower than f4 and this is true for even AF-S. Olympus EM1 II is better in that sense. Ergonomics is not good with tiny buttons and my little finger has to crawl under the camera. The AF square is gray so it is almost impossible to see it in dark. Menu structure is stupid with similar functions scattered among several different tabs (still, after so many generations!). The electronic shutter in A7RIII is slow so I see visible banding above ISO1600 under artificial light (A9 has no such problem but it is also much more expensive).Mirrorless has great advantages but Canikon waited to see some major issues to be eliminated. Market leaders never act the first. In no sector you will see that.

@ozturert - those are design decisions and remember the A9 is ver 1. It will havee those annoyances. Not any difference when in 1-2 months, R and Z users will discover their pet peeve.

The small things that OEMs do sometimes can pile up. Like that gray focusing point being gray. And some of them are compromises to lower the cost. People bring up the less clear A7-3 EVF, but then again, people seem to miss that though the R has way better EVF, it costs U$2,300, and it cannot AF-C with eye-focus, has a 1.7x crop in 4k, no 1080p, no dual card slot, no IBIS, 5fps AF-C, etc etc. I don't know about you, but I would not give up those for a bright EVF, dull AF points,

I beg to disagree on market leaders being just followers at first. It's not always the case. Motorola, Polaroid, kodak, IBM, MS, Apple, etc were first and had decades of lead that were only surpassed way later on. Soon Tesla will join this group as well. Leaders fall behind in high tech when they fail to innovate.

@catepillar: Cankn has known for years that MILC is the future, but they have been considering the timing and preparing the enablers. Yes, the both could have entered earlier, but for me both Nikon and Canon launches were good. The cameras are OK, the mount is good and the lens portfolio will be unrivaled. Sony guys seems to live and breath spec sheets, but I don’t see those omissions dealbreakers for many in the categories of the cameras. If you are happy with your Sony, that’s great. Just let us choose on our own. The more competition, the better.

@Jyppy - At today is just suddenly the right time? If they were preparing then and just waiting for the right time, these gochas in specs and performance would not have happened. They would have IBIS, they would have AF-C in fast frame rates, not SLR days speeds, etc. And Nikon would not have to outsource many of the tech just to keep up. It may not be for you, but most wedding shooters say otherwise.

IF Sony guys are just living on specs, how do you explain the brisk sales of the A7-3? And how can one justify the weak if not mediocre specs of the R? Is only a good EVF or 4:2:2 your selling point? What about 10fps with AF-C? Or a really functioning eye focus even at video, no 4k-cropping and long battery life? Having 2 card slots is also not a high tech thing to put in a U$2,300 camera? I'm not even putting in DR and high ISO performance!

People seem to be ignoring the more critical functions of a camera. The brisk sales and out of stock status of the A7-3 is the proof of that.

Caterpillar,"IF Sony guys are just living on specs, how do you explain the brisk sales of the A7-3?"If Canon is so bad, how do you explain that they have increased their market share steadily in the last years and Canon sells almost as many as Nikon-Sony-Olympus-Panasonic-Pentax combined?

@ozturert - That is easy to explain. Their market share came from selling cheap M cameras. I would not boast about that either because the proof is in their FS. Go check it out. Their market share is up due to the M series, but look at their profits, after expenses. it is down. That is not good. Check out Sony's FS, profits are up.

And if market share is a benchmark of health alone, then, as I always point out, why even try to suddenly make a 35FF MILC with a new mount, a lens system you have to build in years and decades? Surely, all Canon need to do is like what they have done before - NOTHING.

But everybody is scrambling. Even Pansonic seems to be ready to jump to it too. or at least go larger sensor. Why? IF marketshare is such a deal breaker in this case, why the rush to create a NEW SYSTEM?

That's not all. It seems Canon is also shifting its R&D expenses to elsewhere. Cameras are high tech products. Without it, you will eventually wither & die, unless you outsource it.

Canikons new products managed to remain in a more photographic approach that it was expected from the audience. An audience that it was moved and thrilled, and not without a reason, from the new-kid-in-the-block's Sony proposals. It seems that they both understood that in this point there is a change under development in the market share of the photographic industry, so their first goal is to retain their clientele. After presenting their cams to follow, rather soon I guess, which will be aimed to advanced enthusiasts/pros, they will make their statement in how they see things. I think that the more serious step they will take it's the presentation of entry level mirroless cams so to renew the loyalty of the audience in the years to come.

Seems like typical Canon to me. Conservative and well built, but lacking in cutting edge.

Have to say I think Nikon have the upper hand here - F mount lenses do not really work on Sony cameras whereas Canon's do. If I was a Canon user I'd already have an a7r3. Instead I'm forced into getting a Nikon Z down the line as I'm too attached to my lenses.

I can see more creep from Canon to Sony than Nikon in the next few years as there is a fairly painless and gradual transition path.

It strikes me that they could go for multi aspect ratio, or just more pixels in Y (keeping the X count the same).If you modified lenses (or for future lenses), you could get 4:3 with 36 x 27 mm, or a shrunk version of that that will fit in a 35mm lens circle. No mirrors to get in the way.Thus, you could use the very wide lens mount for a medium format system as well as a 35mm one.

Meaning "focused" - as by the 'condenser' lens in an enlarger (..enlarger as used for printing pictures from film onto chemical photo paper..) which gathered the light from a lightbulb inside the enlarger lamp chamber, and focused it onto the film in the negative-holder.

Apple sold cameras! They introduced the QuickTake in 1994. The first two versions were made by Kodak, and Fujifilm made the 3rd model. Jobs stopped the project in 1997. So your wish might come true if Apple tries again 😁.

Apple FF camera:- Battery life decreases in 3 years so you have to buy a new camera- They buy some HDD company, then remove card slots and make you have to buy wireless HDD. Or you need a 100-USD adapter.- Every new firmware slows down your camera -> Buy new camera- No shutter button- Notch- There is only charger in the box. You want cable connection? 150-$ in Apple Store.- Good UI- Nice looking ergonomic design - Strap for only 150USD

They have done what I always wished: Adapters for EF lenses WITH additional functionality. I learned from the small Powershot S95 that such a ring is very welcome - now it will be in my hands soon with a more mature photographic system.

Now I am shure I will use an EOS R camera for FF - maybe this one or another type with similar capabilities / features. And not switch to another FF body with adapter for my EF lenses.The statement to do firmware updates including new features is a good move of Canon. To make it a "Banana product" in a positive sense: "Product matures in users hands".

M50 was a first (great) test balloon I really enjoy, EOS R will be a similar upgrade-enabled test balloon.

I don't see that M-Fn Bar being around too long. Too gimmicky, too prone to accidental activation, too 'touchy'. It would have been fine as a mechanical rocker button with tactile feedback. But as a touch-sensitive bar, it seems more like a gimmick.

@klipsi - You also get that with the A7-3 though at 1.5x crop optically. But Sony has Clearimage zoom that further gives another 1.5x zoom which is amazingly still sharp for a "digital zoom." The image is hardly compromised. That 600mm effectively becomes 1,350mm FOV. This is in 4k or in 1080p. In photo, you can go as high as 2x on ClearImage zoom.

"But having shot the 28-70mm F2 wide-open a little over the last few days, I'm more likely to believe there's some benefit to what Nikon and Canon say they're doing."

You are implying that it may not be possible to design a lens like the Canon 28-70mm f2 for the Sony mount, based on the smaller diameter lens mount.

However, If you compare the rear element sizes of the Sony 24-70mm 2.8 and the Canon 28-70mm F2 on their respective, scaled lens element layout schematics, they look to be similar. This would imply the rear element size is not a dominating constraint on the Sony and such a lens design may be just as feasible for the Sony.

It is not about theoretical possibility. It is about actual performance of such product.Every fast lens from sony has severe issues wirh quality (decentering) and corner / edge sharpness. It might be that e mount sets very high demand on engeneering of such lenses or sony cannot design good lenses. Take your pick but actual products speak for themselves.

Your comments earlier that 'proper' cameras (as opposed to smart phones) are 'upstreaming' and becoming the domain of a few is really bad news. Fewer more expensive sales does not support the level of R&D and manufacturing that the mass market 'entry level' cameras have provided you don't build a new development lab or factory to make a few thousand units. Mass production and sales supports high end development.

After thinking about this for a couple of weeks and reading this article, I concluded that this is an even bigger fail that people have given canon credit for. $2400 for vintage processing power, gigantic lenses that cost a fortune and nobody wants to carry around, and no foreseeable change in strategy.Extrapolate what cellphones have become in 10 years to what they will be in another 10. I will be amazed if all this antiquity is not disappeared by 2025.

This Canon is great if one actually uses a camera instead of reading a spec sheet. What amazes me is how each Sony camera is a big fail, in that they've had 5 years and still can't get ergonomics right.

As to those "gigantic lenses nobody wants to carry around"...hahaha. Those lenses are exactly what photographers lust after, and while large, are hardly "gigantic." Those lenses will make the system.

Smartphones have indeed taken over most of the camera market, and if Canon's existence is threatened in 10 years, as you allude to, then so is that of every other camera company/division, including Sony.

Everything is getting bigger except the pockets that pocket cameras are supposed to fit in. Backpacks, belts, harnesses, trusses--some funny stuff. The manufacturers have to make mirrorless cameras because Sony backed them into a corner but any size or weight saved on the body is given back with faster and better lenses. Like the giant cell phones there is some logic to this. But I am surprised at all the fuss over 50mm lenses. They were once considered the dullest focal length, but no more.

Thought r usNo no sir, I am NOT looking for’those Big lenses, you are wrong. I am looking for a small body like the a7,small lenses like the 35 f2,8 or 85 f,8 and certainly not for monsters costing 3000 usd and having me carrying mora than a one kilo lens which make my body nearly useless when traveling.

@Thought r usMan, you're such a troll. So far 19 posts about this article, in every and each one, you praise Canikon and bash Sony in Fox News manner, You're either payed to do that or you have some issues, maybe like Peter NR, to whom your bashing here, reminds me a lot. Pathetic! And this comes from Canon user!

What amazes me about these announcements from Sony/Nikon/Canon is how poorly they work in a digital world. Stream Video to Facebook/YouTube? No Post quickly to Facebook? No 4G/LTE Support? No Auto Upload to Cloud? Maybe Japan's camera manufacturures used to be work together and set great standards 30 years ago. Now the innovations are from cell phone makers in California and Korea. Something is wrong here.

I do agree that smartphones have a huge edge over dedicated cameras by virtue of being connected to the internet for easy sharing of photos. But there is no way a dedicated camera can make up for that. People are not going to pay for a cell connection on a camera. And then of course the OS of the camera has to be able to manage not only the cell phone connectivity, but the uploading to the cloud, Facebook, etc. Camera companies are not going to be able to create software to do that as well as an iPhone.

There is no easy solution for camera companies. The smartphone has taken over most of the market.

It is not easy or trivial as you say. First they need an internet connection. It's not like this happens by magic. They don't have cellular connectivity built in. They can connect via wifi to a smartphone, but then why not use your smartphone for video? We are back to the same question and it all revolves around the advantages of smartphone connectivity.

Also, those modern cameras that can connect to a smartphone for uploading of photos...well, that uploading of photos requires those to be downsized for ease of transfer; the bandwidth is not that great, and would choke off video streaming.

Communication devices require more licensing and regulation. It is VERY easy to transfer files from camera to phone, tablet, or other device and upload from there. Saves you being on a call when a photo moment occurs, also. Having every electronic function conceivable in one housing isn’t necessarily the most flexible configuration

It is not reasonable to compare any other device whether camera or fridge or whatever to smartphones. Smartphones have become the 'one device' IT people all hypothesised about...they are torches, computers, phones etc.

- It is actually trivial, and nowadays any engineering student with some programming skill can make it work within a day! Take a look at this device. It has camera, motor for panning, circuit board for motion and sound detection. And it costs $38.

Most of you missed the point here. Let's take wireless video and Canon. That $800 WT-7 transmitter doesn't stream to the web for all that money. But if you use a $700 Vidiu unit, you can. But it should be easy to develop this same functionality for use with the WiFi on the new Sony/Nikon/Canon full frame mirrorless cameras. The problem is a lack of standard, between Periscope/YouTube, etc. This is exactly what Japan Inc. used to do well. Be it VHS or other standards. If Sony/Nikon/Canon are going to survive beyond the pro/prosumer users and market, they have to get consumers to upgrade from phone cameras. To do that they need to be able to do everything a phone can do or have good tethering to iOS and Android phones. Instead, we see Japan Inc. not get software. Even Sony has given up the ability to add apps to their new cameras. This is a serious problem.

I realize, as many have said here, Canon may have been worried about releasing a new body that directly competes against its DSLR line. Still..... I don't get how you put out a camera with a high performance AF system (5,000 points) and sensor, but mediocre FPS in servo mode? If the R had fewer AF points it would make sense. If it had fewer AF points and the sensor from the 6D2 and a lower price point, Canon might have a good teaser entry camera ....and admittedly one that looks like the Nikon Z6.By the way, no one has mentioned the elephant in the room: Does a new camera system come with a new flash system? How long before it's goodbye EX-RT?

@Solophotog - the answer is simple - the current sensor tech does not have the bandwith or data path to handle all those AF points, and/or thee digic processor is weak and innefficient. It too cannot handle the load. This is the reason for the 4k 1.7x crop, lack of 1080-120p, AF-S only one eye-focus, low framerate, etc.

As for the elephant in the room. There is none. Those flashes will work the same as with dslrs.

"All these wonderful new systems suck". Really? Is that sarcasm - you pulling our legs? If not, please elucidate. Which ones specifically suck, how and in what way do they suck and how are you measuring 'suckiness'?

I think they could have used the control scheme from Canon M6 and add few levers here and there - for drive, af and metering mode. I consider Panasonic G2 as one of the best when it comes to those levers. Want face detect? - flick the lever, burst shooting? Flick the lever, spot metering - same or similar dedicated levers or wheels for most common functions. Or Sony A7 control scheme would have been great too adding those few extra levers or wheels dedicated to most used functions...

I havent had a chance yet to handle one of these myself. But judging by the various hands ons videos I've watched the lenses are just crazy huge!I'm sure the camera is a highly customizable, ergonomic device. And a great AF assisted imaging tool. But the bulky body and the massive lenses are a huge turn off. Ick

On the contrary, I found the M-Fn bar to be immediately useful, and I'd have called it downright awesome if it weren't for a small bug- I've customized it to swipe for fine tuning my Kelvin White Balance, and I've set the "tap" of the left and right sides to be 3000K and 5000K, respectively, since those are the two most common settings I use as a wedding photographer. The ability to have a "safety lock" on the pad is also welcome, though, for avoiding inadvertent cranking of the WB, even though such an accident wouldn't harm raw images.

Of course, with my luck, I wound up finding the one and only (???) bug in the EOS R's customization- When you tap back and forth a bunch between 3000K and 5000K, the WB sometimes switches from K to +/-, even though it's not programmed to, and then the swiping action becomes unavailable and I have to go into the Q menu and reset the WB to K again. Hopefully this will be fixed with a firmware update before final release.

Overall, it definitely bears the brand of a "1st-gen" product, however it's refreshingly UNLIKE those 1st-gen attempts at full-frame mirrorless that came in the form of the god-awful Sony 7-series mk1's. Though the EOS R could stand to improve its ergonomics and functionality a little bit, and the omission of certain key features (undoubtedly for the sake of differentiation to a higher-end version) is unacceptable to many pros, ...it is still an absolutely solid camera that gives an encouraging glimpse into what the RF mount will deliver in the long run.

“Overall, it definitely bears the brand of a "1st-gen" product, however it's refreshingly UNLIKE those 1st-gen attempts at full-frame mirrorless that came in the form of the god-awful Sony 7-series mk1's”

The EOS R is more polished as a 1st gen mirrorless model in 2018 because those A7 cameras started paving the way 5 years ago.

I’m sure the EOS R is a solid camera, but there are lots of solid cameras out there that offer a lot more than just glimpses into a future that may or may not be.

No, Canon would have never released such a junky, flimsy camera, period. Sony "paved the way" only in regards to new tech- a great EVF (which Canon definitely pulled off) and great on-sensor AF. (Again, Canon definitely pulled this off, despite the limitations which will probably be "unlocked" in a 1-series or 5-series version of this camera...)

Sony floundered and struggled for three generations with ergonomics and menus, and still hasn't gotten it perfect just yet. Canon and Nikon have been able to rely on their decades worth of experience at ergonomic design and menu / UI evolution.

You're right, though, the EOS R is /not/ a convincing enough argument that the RF system is worth EVERYBODY's money. It is barely a convincing argument for 6D-series users and EF-S/EF-M upgraders who were waiting for a FF MILC option.

Canon should have tried much harder to be competitive at this $2K price point. It is at this price point that their fate will be decided, IMO.

I do understand that some may totally prefer the physical thumb wheel that Canon was/is famous for, but I never liked that thing, it wasn't in the right place for easy operation with my big hands, especially with my left eye to the viewfinder. Having a rear command dial in the position that Nikon has had one for decades makes much more sense.

I do wish that the thumb touchpad were sensitive to more than one axis; that would be amazing. And I do wish that there was also the little joystick that Canon has put into its more recent designs (and slowly perfected) over the last 10 years.

Hopefully a $3300 version of this camera will have both a touch pad and a joystick, maybe even a thumb wheel too, for those who miss it.

So far I've had a great time using it at two weddings, with the touchpad dial set to do K WB, and the lens control ring set to do ISO or EV comp. It's definitely so useful that I could easily "jump ship" from Nikon to this system, if it were perfected in a next generation.

There's definitely still a 1st-gen vibe to it, though. Aside from the bug I found, I wish that there was even more customizable functionality, such as being able to program the lens command ring to do ISO when exposure mode is M, but automatically switch to EV comp when the camera is switched to P, Av, or Tv. Instead, I'm stuck with a lens command ring that may become useless depending on which exposure mode I need to switch to.

I also wish that the touchpad dial were sensitive in 2 or even 4 directions, so that I could use it to move AF points around with my right thumb instead of having to do it on the main rear LCD with my left thumb, since I'm left-eyed.

I find it bewildering that photographers today regard the brand as an indication of quality. As a professional photographer for 25 years I find that every manufacturer of cameras & lenses has played its part in the evolution of our equipment:

Nikon, the best 35mm film slr’s of the 60’s – 90’s, no question.Fuji, the best mf film cameras, 6x9 & 6x17. Face recognition in the f31 compact.Olympus, OM4Ti flash sync, 1st live-view, and first 43rds cam.Panasonic, The combination of small camera with analogue controls – the LX series.Canon, ground-breaking 16.2 mp res (1Dsii) affording double-page repro with no interpolation. Dual pixel AF; and fabulous lensesPentax, well the Spotmatic obviously….

Thebadge is irrelevant. So there’s a devil sitting on my shoulder asking why dpr encourage brand warfare. Despite the angel saying that this is a balanced piece, there is a definite emphasis on brand. I have to wonder why…

“I believe Canon's EOS R shows a more adventurous attitude, at least by Canon's standards”“The general perception we see from our readers ...is that Canon is a cautious company with a dominant market position that discourages the kinds of unexpected innovation we see from the likes of Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony.”“There are certainly aspects that make the EOS R feels like a 'version 1' product: something we don't usually expect from Canon.”“But there are also signs of Canon still being, well, Canon. A criticism we've levelled at Canon over the years is that”“Or, at least, the closest to it that Canon allows.”“However, in perhaps the most un-Canon-like move imaginable”“Or, at least, the closest to it that Canon allows.”“but it's much closer to being competitive than Canon had previously been”“the EOS R shows Canon being more flexible and innovative than we're used to seeing”“I suspect Canon's done what they were trying to achieve”

I'm not interested in your speculation as to where this or that company is going; or in your perception of this or that company's "attitude" (whatever that means).

As a photographer I just want to know how this camera / lens/ flash / memory card / printer / scanner / computer - works for me. The brand is a complete red herring - because the label on the equipment does not matter.

Brand does matter.If you are a small company, brand does nothing to you because your risk is just minimal even though you lost all of your business.For a big company, brand awareness is extremely important. No big corporation will take risk in using unreliable brand. Canon provides world class service and supporting team globally, together with their reliable quality, they guarantee any professional can be backed up by strong service wherever they are. This minimize the risk of the big corporations in losing big lost due to the unreliable company, unreliable products and unreliable services.

"I'm not interested in your speculation as to where this or that company is going; or in your perception of this or that company's "attitude" (whatever that means)."You aren't, Richard --but I am. I suspect I'm not alone, either.

@Richard in UK; Your criticism is overly harsh and myopic. DPR try to run as balanced and as bias free articles as possible - individual writer sub conscious bias is unavoidable. I never get the feeling that any DPR writer deliberately pushes one brand over another. That said, I do often find almost subliminal bias in evidence, which usually favours Canon or Nikon. Now that the DSLR market is entering a death spiral, perhaps that will change although I now suspect that other brands will replace Canon or Nikon as "acknowledged leaders in the field" which going forward, will then feed through in to review articles and in turn show unconscious bias in favour of the replacement brands.

Did you not read the title? Give them a break. It's a perfectly reasonable article and helpful to see where things might be going. If you are not interested in the future and the opinions of others, go check out the mirror in your bathroom.

I disliked the effort in the article to try to be upbeat about a disappointing camera. It names the flawed Nikon Z look incredible by comparison.

You are half right that brand shouldn't matter. But tell me one single purchasing decision you make that doesn't involve a consideration of the brand. You like coke? Brand of beer? Your favorite shop. Even favorite singer or band, or even sports team.

The future is 'no future'. Right from the start it's deeper than Nikon and Sony's mount, meaning no possible way to port those lenses to Canon R. Paired with Canon's long-in-the-tooth CMOS and forever crippled video features (so they can sell you video cameras) , what not to like.

Provided all R lenses will be stabilised, the lack of IBIS is no biggy. IBIS for large sensors must be a huge drain on batteries. Perhaps Canon have placed their bets on further improvement of lens IS. Olympus who kicked off with IBIS have moved to supplementing it with ILIS as a dual IS system.

Only 2 of 4 RF-lenses are stabilized right now. Lens IS drains just as much power from the battery. Dual IS systems offer better stabilization than lens IS or IBIS alone. So why not have both? Especially since you will never get 5-axis stabilization from lens is. And because that needs more power, just make the batteries slightly larger.

My point about IBIS was that while it might make sense for m4/3, a FF sensor is nearly 4 times as big therefore probably 4 times as heavy. To accelerate that would take of the order of 16 times more energy. Bigger batteries are a solution of course.

@maxz, ...why would Canon care about making their mount cross-compatible with others, when theirs is the most popular lens mount on the market?

They probably chose to go with the deepest MILC mount on purpose so that they could sell more RF/EF lenses. And it will probably work, it's a solid business tactic.

The only real serious risk they've taken here is, not offering IBIS and dual SD slots at this price point, nor un-cropped 4K video, since the measuring stick that is the A7iii has all three of those things and costs $300 less.

The RF system is going to prove to be a great mount, period. Canon will probably put dual card slots, IBIS, and maybe even un-cropped 4K video in a $3300 version of this camera. Really, all they need to do is bite the bullet and become more competitive at the ~$2K body price point...

I note that the Canon R White Paper describes the considerations that guided the new mount design:

One of the mentioned considerations is the need to "Accommodate current Canon EOS image sensor sizes up to Full Frame 36mm x 24mm"

Note the use of the term "up to", which strongly implies that future cameras with smaller sensors (APS) will also use the RF mount, thereby confirming that despite the release of another M mount lens, the EOS M system will be left to die, and will be replaced by RF mount crop sensor cameras.

During the launch event, it was reported that the Canon EOS R sensor was the same as the EOS 5D Mark IV’s sensor, but apparently, that’s not the case.

Mr. Kiyota : The number of pixels itself is the same as EOS 5D Mark IV, but the sensor itself is newly developed. The content has changed a lot, such as adoption of a new dual pixel CMOS AF and arrangement of microlenses according to EOS R system. (Google Translated)

Then maybe look a bit harder. Are you really telling us the only differences are microlenses?

5d4: There are 63 phase points on the sensor with a minimum sensitivity of -4Ev.

EOS R: The EOS R takes the Dual Pixel CMOS AF technology to a new level by introducing no fewer than 5,565 points which is an insane number by today’s standards. The minimum sensitivity is -6Ev with an f1.2 lens.

To use the Dual Pixel CMOS AF on the 5D, you need to activate Live View. With this setting the mirror stays flipped up and the light can hit the sensor directly. Live View can be used for stills but is mostly useful for video shooting. There are 63 phase points on the sensor with a minimum sensitivity of -4Ev.

The EOS R takes the Dual Pixel CMOS AF technology to a new level by introducing no fewer than 5,565 points which is an insane number by today’s standards. The minimum sensitivity is -6Ev with an f1.2 lens.

What lens is that -4EV figure referring to? Bearing in mind -6EV with an F1.2 lens would be something like -4.5EV with an F2 lens. That's a difference easily accounted for be a tweak in processor or algorithm.

Also, bear in mind that there's no standardized definition of what constitutes an 'AF point's when it comes to on-sensor AF. At the hardware level, every pixel on both the 5D IV and R's sensor are depth-aware. The number of selectable AF positions is a UI decision, not one defined by hardware.

Mr. Kiyota : The number of pixels itself is the same as EOS 5D Mark IV, but the sensor itself is newly developed. The content has changed a lot, such as adoption of a new dual pixel CMOS AF and arrangement of microlenses according to EOS R system. (Google Translated)

Shaun Gibbs - It's fairly obvious that what Kiyota-san was telling us is that the sensor has a new microlens layer, but that apart from that it is a standard 5DMkiv sensor.

Don't take everything Canon says so literally. It is clearly being slightly "dressed up" in marketing terms to try and make it sound as if this consititutes a major improvement, but apart from the microlenses it is a standard 5Div sensor.

All pixels are potentially usable for AF (as per live-view on 5Div, and as per R), the number actually used is controlled by firmware, not by the sensor itself.

Incidentally the 5Div sensor is extremely good, so having it on the R should be seen as a bonus - it's equal in performance to sensors from a7iii or Z6, but the extra pixels provide slightly more cropping ability.

By the time Canon and Nikon's mirrorless camera and lens mature, Sony will release its Medium Format mirrorless with more promising mount and lens. So the Canon/Nikon catching up game goes on and on.

The rumored Fuji MF GFX 100S will use Sony’s 44x33mm IMX461, the first medium format sensor that’s backside illuminated for greater low-light performance. Thus Sony is capable of pushing MF mirrorless camera. It is just time and demand.

I do like the idea of the Fuji GFX 100s and do think it will come to fruition. The Fuji GFX 50s is already a strong entry, with great lenses. Ironically, it demonstrates the idea that lenses make the system. Ironically, most of the arguments the cynics have made against the EOS R would also apply to the GFX.

I don't think Sony is going to enter MF; it's a very small market now. But who knows what the future will hold? As the dedicated camera market goes upstream, it is possible that MF becomes the new FF.

My point is that, when people make their decision, they look for what the product can do it for them NOW, not the product MAY provide for them in the future.

If Sony has a full line of mature product while Canon and Nikon are trying to catch up with a version one product and a not-so-clear future. People will choose to wait, or jump ship when they need to use a product immediately. If they wait, they can also wait for Sony to provide new product. In either case, I don't see Canon nor Nikon win over their customer.

I agree that people don't consider the future as must as the present in most purchasing decisions.

But I don't buy this theme of Canon/NIkon can never catch up...they already have created cameras that are superior in some respects. For instance, Sony is not a mature product when it comes to ergonomics; far from it. And I have news for everyone: when buying a camera or any product, usability and ergonomics usually wins out over specs. There is a myth that the spec sheet is all that matters, propagated by many reviewers/youtubers, etc.

But let's also consider that in many cases companies do catch up and surpass first movers. Google was not the first search engine; Facebook not the first social media network; Apple did not have the first smartphone, or the first MP3 player for that matter.

Sony, with no competition yet, did not need the feel to pull ahead too far. What Sony has not done so far has been intentionally left out for future proofing the market. Do your really think that Sony does not have the technology to make a slightly more rugged body?

Don’t listen to them canon. We don’t WANT endless customisation. That’s WHY we buy your cameras. They’re not dinky consumer items with a million and one menus and options. They’re pro gear with fewer options done correctly. That button or dial goes there and does X because that’s the RIGHT place for it.

That's true to some extent Tom, but the fact is that Canon (and all other brands) change their control layouts with every iteration, demonstrating that they are still struggling to find the ideal layout.

The perfectly positioned AF toggle found on their pro DSLRs has been thrown out on the R, and replaced with a swipe control that can easily be accidentally knocked onto an undesired setting.

Canon DSLRs have arguably the best controls of all, but those on the R are poorly positioned. Canon *does* need to listen, so that similar mistakes are not made on the R's successors.

First, The EOS R offers a ton of customization, like all computers and mirrorless cameras are really computers that accept lenses.

Second, I agree with Tom: there is such a thing as offering users an overwhelming degree of options. Too many options ends up being like zero options, because people find it too confusing and give up.

When any of us by any engineered product, we in essence are buying the decisions of the engineers regarding tradeoffs. We are saying that we agree more with those engineers than with the engineers of another competitor.

I don't mind if tech products, which are already very complicated, end up simplifying some of the processes for me, as long as they are worthy trade offs.

The issue here is that different people are happy with different aspects of the interface and want to customise the bits they are not happy with.If everything is customisable then if you like the default settings you can leave it alone or set it up the way you want to. There's nobody forcing you to use those custom settings on the dial or to set your own individual settings to every button.My Olympus cameras allow me to pretty much set my own interface but I only customise the control dial behaviour on the various shooting modes and assign custom functions to a few buttons and then leave the rest alone. Having the option though to change something if it doesn't suit me though is quite useful.

With mirrorless you also need many more options. For example, how you want things displayed in the EVF, and I'm not talking about numbers and stuff, just the way the scene is supposed to be shown. Then for example there is the thing between doing focusing similar to a DSLR as in focusing wide open and only closing the aperture down during exposure, or running with the actual aperture setting, which includes focusing with that. Stuff like that is just not possible on DSLRs, so you need options for that, and I certainly don't want some engineer or project manager decide these things for me. I certainly don't want any device I own patronize me. Whenever they did, there would be cases where things just outright fail and then you have no option to fix/change things.

Thought R Us - "class-leading ergonomics" - you gotta be joking! Canon has long been renowned for the excellent ergonomics of its DSLRs, but the R is most definitely a step in the wrong direction.

Canon had to revise the control layout to accommodate the smaller body, but unfortunately have made a bit of a mess of things.

I'm glad they disposed of the 4 top-plate pips found on their DSLRs, but what on Earth possessed them to remove the extremely popular AF toggle and replace it with a swipe control that just duplicates other controls?

Here's what happened with Sony: they had their Alpha SLTs which didn't pan out, they tried E mount crop sensor cameras, which caught on. Then people wanted them to do FF E mount and so they adapted that to FF. Bit it's a smaller mount that was not originally designed for FF.

Sony is now trapped in a smaller mount. In the long run that will be a problem.

As to defining "small"...I don't have to prove myself to you, especially when this very article and the white paper you link to discuss the issue of lens mount sizes and the advantages of going bigger.

As to the Nikon f0.95 lens...first, we're talking Canon here, and also how impressive their new 28-70 f2 and 50 f1.2 lenses are; let's see Sony match those. They won't be able to because the lens mount is too small, just like Nikon wasn't able to match the Canon f1.2 primes with their F mount.

I just love the way 'Thoughts R Us' speaks about Sony product as though he were in a position of authority to do so. I bet he/she hasn't used any latest E mount A7 camera and G master lenses. To be fair I haven't either but by the accounts I have been reading, both from paid website reviewers and unpaid users - enthusiasts, semi-pro's and pro's alike, I'll say almost all (although it is probably all) say the camera/lens performance is first class and the IQ of the resultant images are as good as anything out there. Your denigration of Sony E mount is unwarranted and baseless.

Ok, Canon has the biggest market share of all cameras sold globally. So basically its a very solid and stable mountain of cash flow that a company, very naturally does not want to disturb or jeopardise by any wrong move they potential may make. So thats why no innovation, no progress and no technological marvels. But everyone is only blaming Canon for this. Why? Thats only one side of the coin.As long as photographers keep buying into this Canon myth and therefore sustain its dominant attitude, Canon wont give you what you want. People who buy the gear from this company are the other side of the coin.I have decided I wont be buying anything from this company any more as I believe it doesn't serve my interest any more as a photographer and as a consumer.

I have decided to buy more from this company because they make products for real photographers who understand the importance of ergonomics and lenses.

I decided not to buy Sony, even though technically impressive in many areas, because they are so poor in their design and handling that they do not serve my interests as a photographer and as a consumer.

Canon keeps building what I want, and their cameras keep producing awesome photos. Even so, I blame them for not producing the exact thing that I want, on the exact day that I need it, at the exact price that I want to pay. I know that every other camera company is better at reading my mind and staying within my very low budget. I just have to stop buying into this Canon myth! ;)

Agreed, I actually use a Sony and am interested more with the feel and general operations of this canon. I do like the idea of a dslr sized mirrorless. I never bought into the idea that mirrorless is about miniaturizing.

Yes, that is why I need people like you. Buy elsewhere so Canon can feel the pressure and move their bum further, releasing good products like this one, which I am going to enjoy a lot, carrying all my EF lenses ove. Thank you!! :)

Why is there such a focus on Canon's mirrorless? Its HORRIBLE. No IBIS, has OLPF, horribly cropped 4K. Why isn't DPreview discussing Nikon Z which has IBIS, proper 4K, no OLPF, a BSI 45mp sensor. This is interesting.. not Canon's EOS R dated 2014 era release.

It's a great camera for someone who actually uses it, rather than someone who just reads a spec sheet.

I will take this EOS R over any Sony any day, thanks to a far better feel and ergonomics, and the lens system. Oh yeah, it's already got better colors than Sony. And it even protects the sensor with its shutter curtain when not in use, so it doesn't get dust. I rented an A9 to check it out, and it was an impressive device, but it was a dust magnet. I had to do clean up on my pictures in LR; not hard to do, but with Canon I wouldn't have that bother.

@ojus - Not really. Lots of people hate video on Sony. Can't even get 4-2-2 via HDMI. Sony is no where near perfect on video. Canon's Dual Pixel AF smokes anything Sony has. And thats before worrying about the tons of problems that plagued Sony's since Mark I. Garbage shutters, firmware, and problematic sensors. Sorry sony fan boy.

I see in many cases comments like this: "both Canon and Nikon have settled on a similar solution: a short, wide lens mount", but in fact the EF mount has the same diameter as the RF mount. Thus Canon has not changed here anything, and they even write in their white paper (page 8) that both mounts are designed so that photographer face the same turning angle of 60 degrees to lock the lens, with identical location and protrusion of the locking pin. The flange of the bayonet was changed so that EF lens would not attach to the RF mount.

Only Nikon decided to increase the mount diameter. And smaller flange distance is rather obvious, how else can we obtain a smaller body, now that the mirror box and the prism are gone? The discussion about mount diameter recalls the old web-chatter ("opinions without fact check") that Nikon's mount diameter prevents them from going DX to FX (the D2-aera.) However, Nikon than came out with the D3/D700 and suddenly many were quiet for a moment there.

There's only a 1mm difference in diameter between the RF and the Z mounts. I think it's fair, at that point, to say that they settled on a similar solution.

The difference is that Canon moved to a wide (but deep) mount in the 1980s, so they'd already made half the journey. The specifics of how the lenses mount is designed to be familiar but you could say the same of the Z mount and its anti-clockwise rotation (as you face the body) - that doesn't mean nothing's changed.

Hi, Richard Butler. So Canon made the wide mount for over 30 years, yet we don't see much lens using that advantage, until the RF lens. Why Canon didn't take that wide mount advantage for the last 30 years?

Does it means the shorter flange distance is more important than the wide mount? Canon get that chance to use the wide mount only when the short flange distance allows it?

Well there are more F1.2 lenses for the EF mount (the widest of the main full frame DSLR mounts), than any other, which suggests Canon has made some use of the width of the EF mount. (Noticeably Nikon said the Z mount would let them build lenses a stop faster than the F-mount, which implied a limit around F1.4).

Both Canon and Nikon are saying it's the combination of short and wide (which wasn't possible with a mirror in the way) that opens up more possibilities.

Nikon has indeed stopped at f1.4 recently, but in the past they have ventured many times to f1.2, I quote from Braczko, 2000 edition:50mm f/1.2 390g, July 197855mm f/1.2 425g, Dec 196558mm f/1.2 "Noct", 485g, Dec 1977However, Canon has had indeed an advantage with their wider EF mount, and they used to have the 50mm F/1.0 , quite soft in corners and discontinued. I think that many photography enthusiasts do not realize how shallow the depth of field is than, and how limited is the application of such a lens fully open. You could get a tip of a nose sharp, and the eyes would be already out of focus. Lots of expensive glass, difficult to make, usually soft in the corners, and almost out of practical use. Thus F1.4 or F1.8 proven to be the apertures to go in most cases.

I'm quite aware that Nikon has made lenses faster than F1.4, which is why I didn't say that they couldn't, just that their statement about the new mount allowing lenses 1EV faster implies they consider there to be a (quality?) limit around F1.4 on the F-mount.

Yes and no. As a landscape photographer who uses a 5D2 with the exceptionally well performing EF 16-35/4, I often think to myself how great it would be to have similar, or better IQ, at twice (or more) the resolution.In other words, I would much rather my keepers were at 42+ Mpix than 21, and that is all about the camera I am using.[I get the feeling Canon is targeting more 'commercial' photographers than say landscape photographers which is probably a smart move].

Technically, even a monkey can take great images with whatever camera. Choosing the right tool or a better tool (for the price) isn't about one's photography skills. Despite that it has a lot to do with understanding the technology around it. Somehow people tend to confuse tools with skills all the time. Monkeys don't. It's ridiculous.

@Kreitmann: True, and it will be interesting to see how Canon approach that; Will it need to be Dual pixel?, will it need 4K, will it be $4000?Mostly I was referring to those fast, expensive native lenses they announced which will be great for photographing 'people' I expect.Be interesting to see how well the new 24-105 performs. My old one is pretty poor against my 16-35/4, and on that note, I am very curious to see how well EF lenses perform optically on the adapters.

The original 4/3rds spec also featured a wide throat with the same benefit claim and some of those early 4/3rds lenses were stunning but expensive (ex. the Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0 SWD weighed a ton and cost more than $2,000 IIRC.)I wonder if Canon and Nikon will have the guts to offer lenses that match what Olympus achieved more than a decade ago. Here's what the 4/3rds people said about their mount back then. "...the diameter of the lens mount exceeds the sensor size and the digital-dedicated lens design allows all the light (even on the periphery) to travel perpendicularly to the surface of the image sensor. The result is a sharp, clear image reproduction throughout the image plane."

Re: "I wonder if Canon and Nikon will have the guts to offer lenses that match what Olympus achieved more than a decade ago. "

Done long ago. The 14-35 / 2 on 4/3 is equivalent to (same [diagonal] angle of view, same DOF, and same total amount of light projected on the sensor for a given scene and exposure time) a 28-70 / 4 on FF and the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 is equivalent to 70-200 / 4. Canon's current offerings better what Olympus offered by a stop and deliver higher resolution to boot.

That said, there is a 28-70 / 2 for the R, and that's equivalent to a 14-35 / 1 on mFT (4/3), and it looks to be nothing less than stellar (although it's not cheap, of course).

That 28-70 f2 weighs 1.4 kg. The current 2.8 weighs on just more than half that weight. I can tell you now that people will rapidly tire of carrying around that level of bulk for non-studio activities. Every lens is a trade off. I have serious doubts about how many people will tolerate hand holding a lens of that weight particularly on the front of a relatively lightweight body like the R

Sorry Mr Bustard, I’m talking about lens parameters affecting image quality: resolution, specular highlight rendering, sharpness across the field, color rendering, autofocus accuracy, and freedom from abberations. Those elements are ones that you and your followers have specificallv said are not part of the theory. As the inventor of your theory says: “Elements of IQ, such as bokeh, color, flare handling, distortion, etc., as well as elements of operation, such as AF speed/accuracy, size, weight, etc., are not covered in this use of the term "equivalent".

For sure, those qualities all matter, and matter a lot. I sincerely doubt, however, that the 14-35 / 2 on 4/3 has anything over the 24-70 / 2.8L II on FF in those regards, nor the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 have anything over the 70-200 / 2.8L IS II in those regards. The 4/3 lenses certainly didn't with regards to light put on the sensor or resolution on the photo, that's for sure.

In any case, for sure, here's to hoping that the lenses for the RF mount exceed what the lenses for the EF mount managed to obtain. All the initial indications are that they have.

I should have been clearer, this has nothing to do with comparing systems by the criteria of Joseph James and his followers What I am trying to say is that I hope Nikon and Canon summon the technical genius and corporate courage to try to match the audacity of those two Olympus lenses. They were masterpieces of lens design and performance regardless of their size or format.

As for total light and all of that, photographers don’t worry about those issues because if there’s not enough light to get the f/stop we want, we make it with speedlights, studio strobes, and reflectors. If we dont like the depth of field, we move the camera and subject in relation to the background till we’re satisfied. Photographers are problem solvers. I understand that a subset of camera owners would quibble that our approach is impossible because some scenes are out of their control, but those people are not photographers.

Re: "I should have been clearer, this has nothing to do with comparing systems by the criteria of Joseph James and his followersWhat I am trying to say is that I hope Nikon and Canon summon the technical genius and corporate courage to try to match the audacity of those two Olympus lenses. They were masterpieces of lens design and performance regardless of their size or format."

Fair enough!

Re: "As for total light and all of that, photographers don’t worry about those issues because if there’s not enough light to get the f/stop we want, we make it with speedlights, studio strobes, and reflectors. If we dont like the depth of field, we move the camera and subject in relation to the background till we’re satisfied. Photographers are problem solvers. "

That's like saying that you aren't concerned about sensor or lens performance 'cause you'll just stitch and merge to get the detail/DR you want.

More about gear in this article

This week on DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan compare three entry-level full frame mirrorless cameras: the Nikon Z6, Sony a7 III and Canon EOS R. Watch their analysis to find out where they think each model excels or has room to grow.

The Canon EOS R is a powerful mirrorless interchangeable lens camera with some neat features up its sleeve, but no product is perfect. Here are five ways we think that Canon could improve the EOS R, without redesigning the hardware.

Canon and Nikon finally entered the full-frame mirrorless market this summer with the brand-new RF and Z mounts. Now that we've had some time with the cameras, we wanted to revisit our earlier predictions and take stock.

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.